"Skeptics": why are there no measures of global surface temperature that show the temperature staying constant or cooling?

Constantly in here I how scientists are "manipulating" data to fake global warming. You've all seen the animated gifs of James Hansen or graphicconception's plot of temperature adjustments. If the warming is just due to data manipulation, how come nobody presents a different plot of global mean... show more Constantly in here I how scientists are "manipulating" data to fake global warming. You've all seen the animated gifs of James Hansen or graphicconception's plot of temperature adjustments. If the warming is just due to data manipulation, how come nobody presents a different plot of global mean surface temperature that shows this? The Koch Brothers thought they were going to get one with the BEST study, but that didn't work out for them. Wouldn't fossil fuel companies LOVE to have a plot that showed that global warming isn't happening? Exxon-Mobil makes tens of millions of dollars PER DAY in profits, would they give up a few days or even a month's worth of profits to have such a plot?

Update: And since there are no such plots, isn't it time to move beyond the claims of "data manipulation"? The raw data is available to make your own global mean surface temperature--time to put up or shut up.

Update 2: JimZ didn't answer the question and tried to make us believe that Exxon-Mobil somehow benefits from global warming. Ok JimZ, then forget Exxon-Mobil and tell us why Peabody, Arch, Consol and other coal companies don't do it. Surely you're not going to claim that THEY benefit from awareness of AGW.

Answers

Best Answer: My answer is a bit more nuanced than most. Try to keep up, Dirac. I never claimed the earth is not warming. It is warming. It warmed 0.8 C in the 20th century and is (roughly) on track to warm by the same amount this century. There is no reputable long term graph showing recent temperatures cooling.

One of the most revealing graphs was published by Akasofu. It shows a steady increase overlaid a 30 year oscillation. If you extrapolate from the warm phase, you get impending disaster. If you extrapolate from the cool phase, you get little or no warming. The problem that policy makers have is, it's OK to have a little steady warming. The world will not end in a fiery apocalypse. And the science has to be absolutely certain to enact draconian controls on the power supply. The world is warming, but it is really not a problem.

Edit: The point I am making is that the rapid increase in temperature see in the period 1970-2000 did not accelerate as predicted by the IPCC. Instead it slowed. If you look at the predictions made around 2000, it is clear they got it wrong. Go back to that time period and see what scientists were saying. Look at the predictions from IPCC 2 and 3. They got it seriously wrong. Temperatures are still rising, CO2 has an effect, just not as great as predicted.

Because they do not exist. 1950's we in New Jersey would get three foot of snow and it would stay until April on the ground in spots. Now four inch of snow and it only last a day or two. Is that not proof enough that the temperature is rising! I have seen and shoveled this stuff and now I do not even own a shovel.

A lot of the 'skeptics' aren't actually all that skeptical of global warming. Most accept that the planet is warming due, at least partially, due to our CO2 emissions. What they argue is not whether warming is happening but whether it is significant or damaging or something to be concerned about.

What irritates me is that they tend to band together despite clear differences in view. It is rare for 'skeptics' to take another to task ... I'm sure some accept the data showing warming, but if someone else claims data manipulation or no warming, they say nothing. They'll thumbsup the answer even though they disagree with it.

It's contrarian, intellectually dishonest, and it diminishes the arguments they put forward.

They must not exist. It's laughable that they don't exist, if there was any truth at all about manipulating data. Scientists are Mafia people. They aren't going to get bumped off for telling the truth. Some honest scientist would have presented the truthful data to the world by now.

It is alarmists that try to pretend the earth was stable until humans began emitting CO2. Now any change, whether it is warming, cooling, droughts (funny we haven't heard from you lately about the lack of snow in the Sierras), or floods, etc. is blamed on our CO2.

Alarmists, being the socialists, tend to attack and mock all corporations or anything the government can't control 100% but in fact Exxon Mobil benefits from the AGW scare and the suggestions of them being a big bogie man is just nonsense. It is just tabloid crap from CNN and NYTs.

Add your answer

"Skeptics": why are there no measures of global surface temperature that show the temperature staying constant or cooling?

Constantly in here I how scientists are "manipulating" data to fake global warming. You've all seen the animated gifs of James Hansen or graphicconception's plot of temperature adjustments. If the warming is just due to data manipulation, how come nobody presents a different plot of global mean surface temperature that shows this? The Koch Brothers thought they were going to get one with the BEST study, but that didn't work out for them. Wouldn't fossil fuel companies LOVE to have a plot that showed that global warming isn't happening? Exxon-Mobil makes tens of millions of dollars PER DAY in profits, would they give up a few days or even a month's worth of profits to have such a plot?